Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Comp Ltd., Hyd vs M. Subbamma, Hyd And 5 Others on 9 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 OF 2017
AND
M.A.C.M.A.No.1556 OF 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 of 2017, filed by the claimants
seeking for enhancement of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.1556
of 2017 filed by Insurance Company challenging the compensation
awarded, are directed against the very same award and decree,
dated 29.12.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.947 of 2014 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-XI Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the claim petitioners,
who are wife and children of one Sri M.Bala Guruvaiah,
(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed a petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming
compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death the deceased who
died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.12.2013 at
about 06.00 AM on NH-44, within the limits of Jadcherla Village.
As per the version of the petitioners, on 27.12.2013, while the
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
deceased was returning along with their relatives in a Scorpio
bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 from Brahmanpalli to Hyderabad and
when they reached the limits of Jadcherla Village, the driver of the
vehicle, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a
high speed and applied sudden brakes, due to which the
deceased's head got hit the top/roof of the vehicle and sustained
grievous internal head injury. Immediately after the accident, the
deceased was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
and had underwent operation on 31.12.2013 on account of head
injury. But unfortunately, the deceased was succumbed to
injuries while undergoing treatment on 03.01.2014 at about 11.00
P.M. Based on a complaint, the Jadcherla Police registered a case
in Crime No.05 of 2014 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against
the driver of the Scorpio bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424. According to
the claim petitioners, the deceased was aged about 55 years and
was earning Rs.14,000/- per month as a labourer. On account of
the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their
bread winner and were put to mental shock and love and affection.
Therefore, they laid the claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 &
2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., Scorpio
bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 which is involved in the accident, for an
amount of Rs.9,00,000/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum
along with necessary costs.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1, owner of Scorpio
bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company filed counter denying all the averments made
in the claim petition including, manner of accident, age, avocation,
earning capacity, involvement of vehicle and negligence of driver of
crime vehicle and further stated that the compensation claimed is
excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
against it.
5. On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as
PW1 and also got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on
her behalf. On behalf of Respondent No.2, RW1, who is an
Administrative Officer of Insurance company, was examined and
got marked Exs.B1 to B3 on their behalf.
6. After considering the claim petition, counter filed by the
Respondent No.2 and the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Scorpio bearing
No.AP 09 BN 8424 and has awarded an amount of Rs.6,37,325/-
with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the
Insurance Company and the claimants respectively.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
7. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material
available on record.
8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 of 2017 is that the learned
Tribunal ought to have considered minimum wages for the
deceased while calculating compensation and ought to have
granted compensation under non-pecuniary damages, loss of love
and affection and transportation and hence prayed for
enhancement of the compensation.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 of
2017 also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a
case between Karamjit Kaur and others Vs.Royal Sundaram
Alliance Ins.Co.Ltd. and others 1 in support of their contention.
10. On the other hand, the main contention of the learned
Standing Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company is that the
learned Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation along
with interest as the claim petitioners are not entitled for the same.
11. Now the points that emerges for determination are,
1. Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal
suffers from any irregularity?
2023 ACJ 1835
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
2. Whether the appellants/claim petitioners are entitled
for enhancement of compensation?
POINTS:-
12. It is pertinent to mention that the wife of the deceased was
examined as PW1, reiterated the contents of the claim petition and
deposed about the manner of accident and marked Exs.A1 to A6
on her behalf. Ex.A1-Copy of FIR shows that the Jadcherla Police,
Mahabubnagar District, registered a case in Crime No.05 of 2014
under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the Mahindra
Scorpio bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 and conducted investigation
and laid Ex.A4-Charge sheet against the driver of the said Scorpio
vehicle bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 for his rash and negligent
driving which resulted in an accident and thereby death of the
deceased. Further, Ex.A5-MVI report also shows that the accident
had not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. The
evidence of PW2, who is an eye-witness to the accident and who
travelled along with the deceased in the said vehicle , deposed that
the deceased sustained grievous internal head injury in the said
accident. Nothing worthy was elicited from PWs 1 & 2, whey they
were put to cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 1 &
2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 shows that the deceased-Bala
Guruvaah was died due to surgical spine injury in a road traffic
accident.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
13. Coming to the evidence of RW1, who is working as an
Administrative Officer in the Insurance Company, admitted in his
evidence that the crime vehicle was insured with their company
and Ex.B2 is the Copy of Insurance Policy, which is valid as on the
date of accident. Ex.B1 is the Certified copy of Registration
Certificate of the said Scorpio Vehicle bearing No. AP 09 BN 8424
and Ex.B3 are the terms and conditions of the said Insurance
Policy. RW1 also stated that Respondent No.1 has paid total
premium for third party policy and the seating capacity of the said
crime vehicle is seven in all. Therefore, from the evidence of RW1
coupled with Exs.B1 to B3, clearly establish that Respondent No.1
was the registered owner of the said Scorpio vehicle which was
duly insured with Respondent No.2 under Ex.B2-Insurance Policy
which is valid as on the date of accident. Moreover, clause-1 of the
terms and conditions of Insurance policy made it clear that the
Insurance company will indemnify the insured in the event of
accident caused by using the motor vehicle anywhere in India
against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the
insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death or
bodily injury to any person. Since the deceased died while
travelling in the said vehicle, the Respondent No.2 is liable to
indemnify the Respondent No.1.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
case of the claimants is that deceased was aged 55 years and was
earning Rs.14,000/- per month. Surprisingly, the occupation of
the deceased was not mentioned. Therefore, the Tribunal, by
considering the minimum wages applicable to a labourer, has
taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month which
is very meager. Considering the rates of minimum wages and the
year of accident, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the
deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the deceased was 55
years old at the time of the death, in view of the decision of the
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others 2, if 10% is added towards future prospects to the
established income of the deceased, then the future monthly
income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,600/-. If 1/4th of the income
is deducted towards his personal expenses as the number of
dependants are 5, then the net monthly income comes to
Rs.4,950/-. As the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of
accident, the appropriate multiplier is '11' as per the decision of
the Apex Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another 3. Thus, by applying the multiplier '11', the total loss
of dependency comes to Rs.6,53,400/-. However, the learned
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 (6) SCC 121
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The same
is modified by this Court by awarding Rs.77,000/- under the
conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon) as
prescribed in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi (referred supra). Thus, in all, the claimants are
entitled to Rs.7,30,400/- .
15. Accordingly, this Court, while dismissing M.A.C.M.A.No.1556
of 2017, allowed M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 of 2017 in-part enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.6,37,325/- to Rs.7,30,400/- which
is payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw
the amount as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. There
shall be no order as to costs.
16. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.09.02.2024
ysk
